The evolution of religious and secular morality

PotatoStew · Nov 7, 2002

This is an offshoot from the "Falsifying the all powerful model of God" thread. From that thread:

Stimpy said:

In fact, in Western society, mainstream Christianity, Islam and Judaism have all had to radically rework their moral codes in order to comply with modern secular standards.

ceo_esq replied:

It seems to me that throughout Western history, secular and religious moral standards have generally evolved in a loose tandem. They inform each other and they are themselves informed by common sources (for example, advancements in disciplines ranging from ethical philosophy to the natural sciences). It's clear that both religious and secular codes of morality have been transformed and refined over time, but why do you believe that this is predominantly a matter of the religious conforming to the secular? There even seem to be notable instances where, by and large, developments in the secular conventional morality lagged behind developments in the religious one (such as with respect to civil rights in the 20th century).

Stimpy rebutted:

On the contrary, pretty much every major development to morality over the past several hundred years was made with the dominant religion kicking and screaming the whole way. This includes your example of civil rights in the 20th century. In fact, virtually all of the resistance to advances in civil rights, in the last century, and historically, has come from the dominant religious groups.

Racial equality, women's rights, personal freedom, democratic rule, religious freedom, the elimination of torture and maiming as punishments, all happened in spite of religious influence, not because of it. In fact, I can't think of a single improvement in modern standards of morality over the last 200 years that wasn't vehemently opposed by the major Christian sects.

ceo_esq answered:

The U.S. civil rights movement is an excellent example, perhaps the best in recent history, of a social revolution that drew inspiration, resources and key moral insights from religion to challenge and reform a secular conventional morality. Religious institutions (especially the African-American church) provided the moral compass and institutional center of the movement. (Aldon Morris, The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement (1984).)

This is not to say, of course, that a number of religious leaders and adherents weren't among the least willing to embrace the civil rights movement’s moral vision and the resulting transformation of the social order, though this was less of an institutional phenomenon than religious support for civil rights.

Religious leadership and the material and moral support of religious organizations – acting pursuant to a moral vision that, from their perspective, was closely linked to their religious views – were also largely responsible for the abolition of slavery in Europe, the reform of prisons and mental health sanitariums, the development of modern child-labor laws, and many other milestones in modern Western moral history. The conventional morality against which these social revolutions struggled was, generally speaking, a secular one, and the major institutions that resisted the reforms tended to be civil, political and economic rather than religious.

There is one particular example you gave that I’d like to address. You seem to be asserting that religious institutions fought to preserve the practice of torture after the point where secular moral convention, left to its own devices, would have discarded it. In fact, the Western practice of torture (as used, for example, by the Catholic Church in darker times) was not devised by religious institutions but inherited by them, was far more ingrained in secular judicial custom than in religious custom, and continued to be practiced (and with fewer limitations) by civil authorities after it was renounced by religious ones. How you manage to characterize this state of affairs as “kicking and screaming” by institutions espousing a religiously based morality is not at all clear to me.

In sum, you seem not to share any of these historical views, and I’m curious as to your reasons.

(Edited to add

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm certainly not arguing that religious standards of morality are always in the vanguard vis-à-vis secular ones. I realize there are many counterexamples. However, to maintain that the reverse is actually true (as you've done) is also unjustified by the historical record.

Stimpy concluded:

This is really way off-topic. Perhaps we should continue the morality issue in another thread?

Here's a new thread. I'm interested in hearing your reply, Stimpy.

Stimpson J. Cat · Nov 7, 2002

OK. Thanks for starting the new thread, Potato.

The U.S. civil rights movement is an excellent example, perhaps the best in recent history, of a social revolution that drew inspiration, resources and key moral insights from religion to challenge and reform a secular conventional morality. Religious institutions (especially the African-American church) provided the moral compass and institutional center of the movement. (Aldon Morris, The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement (1984).)

Should it come as any surprise that an African American church would take a different position with respect to racial equality than the other Christian churches? That is beside the fact, though. The civil rights movement in the US (at least with respect to racial equality) dates back to long before then. In fact, it is rather an embarrassment for the US that we were so far behind the rest of the Western World in that respect. In any event, I don't see how anyone could claim that Civil rights movement was religiously motivated. The motivation is obvious and trivial. There were simply a lot of Americans who were sick of being treated unfairly, and took a stand. And fortunately, there were enough other Americans who believed in the basic principles of freedom and liberty enough to stand with them. And lest we forget where those principles came from. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't any religion.

Religious leadership and the material and moral support of religious organizations – acting pursuant to a moral vision that, from their perspective, was closely linked to their religious views – were also largely responsible for the abolition of slavery in Europe, the reform of prisons and mental health sanitariums, the development of modern child-labor laws, and many other milestones in modern Western moral history. The conventional morality against which these social revolutions struggled was, generally speaking, a secular one, and the major institutions that resisted the reforms tended to be civil, political and economic rather than religious.

At any given point in time, the currently held moral and ethical values can be considered "secular". The question is whether the impetus to change those standards was religious or philosophical. I would like to see your support for the claim that the things you listed above were motivated religiously. It is a simple to observe fact that after a moral position in society has changed, the dominant religions have a tendency to change their own views, and claim responsibility for the change being made to society.

There is one particular example you gave that I’d like to address. You seem to be asserting that religious institutions fought to preserve the practice of torture after the point where secular moral convention, left to its own devices, would have discarded it. In fact, the Western practice of torture (as used, for example, by the Catholic Church in darker times) was not devised by religious institutions but inherited by them, was far more ingrained in secular judicial custom than in religious custom, and continued to be practiced (and with fewer limitations) by civil authorities after it was renounced by religious ones. How you manage to characterize this state of affairs as “kicking and screaming” by institutions espousing a religiously based morality is not at all clear to me.

In ancient times, there was no distinction between religion and law. The origin of the barbaric practices of medieval and prior times is irrelevant. What is relevant is that religions tend to have an immense amount of social inertia. They don't change unless they are forced to. The morality of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, were all formulated during a time when the standards of ethics and morality were, by modern standards, horrific. During the period when the Catholic Church controlled Europe, and even today in places where Islam has total control, those barbaric practices remained in place. It was only after the Church began to lose control to individual rulers, that standards of morality began to change. And historically any such change has been resisted by the Church.

I don't know of any example of the Church deciding that a particular practice they once endorsed, was now immoral, before society at large already made that judgement. Can you give a specific example?

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm certainly not arguing that religious standards of morality are always in the vanguard vis-à-vis secular ones. I realize there are many counterexamples. However, to maintain that the reverse is actually true (as you've done) is also unjustified by the historical record.

I strongly disagree. I think that in spite of the obvious attempts of religious groups (particularly the Catholic Church) to present the impression that they are the source of modern morality, that the historical record clearly indicates that nearly every advancement in morality over the past few hundred years, has been strongly resisted by religious groups, and primarily supported by society as a whole, rather than by religious groups.

Dr. Stupid

Yahzi · Nov 7, 2002

How would you decide this issue with respect to slavery? Many of the strongest, early abolitionists were Quakers. On the other hand, the Southern Baptist Convention was convened explicitly to show that the Bible did not condemn slavery.

I think you have to agree with Stimp on this one. While it is true that many abolitionists were religious, it is also true that religious thinking was not what drove their abolition. After all, as everyone at the time agreed, the SBC was right: the Bible does not condemn slavery. So it was not the evolution of Christian theology that condemend slavery. Religion may have given the motivation to act: but it did not determine the cause for which they were acting.

The same for concepts like original sin, punishing the descendants for the crimes of the ancestors, fair labor act (paying people), women's rights, etc. In all of these important cases, Christian thought was the barbaric position from which secular thought moved away from. This is why humanism is so often linked with secularism: because they developed together.

Loki · Nov 7, 2002

ceo_esq,

I think a key factor is to differentiaite between the person/institution making the change, and the motivation/basis for making the change. Christianity has a strong history of 'interpretation', of making the book say what we want it to say. Did the black Civil Rights movement of the 60's start because "their religion told them they should have equal rights", or did they decide they wanted equal rights, and then found support in their religion?

I'd suggest that religion leads change only when there is a clear social/political advantage (for the leadership or congregation) from that change. Otherwise, religion is to be found at the conservative edge of any debate.

In other words, when religion leads the fight for change, it's because there is a non-religious advantage to be gained, and the religion is reworked to incorporate the required outcome.

ceo_esq · Nov 8, 2002

Thanks to Potato for the new thread, and thanks to Stimpy for rightly pointing out that I was starting to lead the earlier discussion a bit far afield.

Stimpy, you have raised some good points, and I apologize in advance for not having the chance to do them all justice at once; I’ll have to adopt a piecemeal approach and try to revisit as time permits. Meanwhile, I expect other people will have observations to offer that are better than mine.

First of all, could you clarify what you mean by “religiously motivated”?

When I ventured to say that the civil rights movement “drew inspiration, resources and key moral insights from religion”, I should emphasize, I did not mean that religion offered esoteric moral principles relating to civil rights which were not accessible outside of religion. People have an intuitive faculty (more or less developed according to the person) for grasping moral principles and are capable of working out moral matters by the light of reason, or so Aquinas tells us.

However, moral understanding is increased and refined through the many varieties of human experience and discourse. Is it really so extraordinary that the moral understanding elaborated through religious experience and discourse might, from time to time and as to certain issues, occasionally arrive at a new approach to a moral problem which hasn’t yet been broadly embraced by the society at large? I don't need to be religious to recognize that the contrary would be even more surprising.

Now that I think of it, Stimpy, perhaps I could ask you to describe the type of historical example you would accept as validating my point. I don’t expect you to come up with my evidence for me, of course, but if you could broadly describe the criteria (e.g., “a moral advancement where A and B are true, but Y and Z are absent” or whatever), it might spare me the trouble of coming up with an example that doesn’t meet your criteria and spare you the trouble of refuting it. I hope you’re not going to say “a true moral advancement that no one supported except for religious reasons and that was completely unjustifiable by reference to any non-religious moral precept,” or anything like that.

Moving right along:

Stimpson J. Cat said:
In ancient times, there was no distinction between religion and law. The origin of the barbaric practices of medieval and prior times is irrelevant. What is relevant is that religions tend to have an immense amount of social inertia.

Your first statement is an overly broad generalization. I grant that the notion of the divine origins of civil authority persisted until relatively late in Western history, and the modern understanding of the separation of church and state is, well, modern. However, it's simply untrue that premodern societies (such as during the Middle Ages) did not exhibit a distinction – in some respects a reasonably sophisticated one – between civil authority and ecclesiastical authority, as well as identifiably separate legal and judicial institutions in each sphere. I think this is relevant in the context of my remarks about torture.

And immense inertia is a feature of social institutions, full stop; it’s demonstrably not unique to religious institutions.

Stimpson J. Cat said:
I don't know of any example of the Church deciding that a particular practice they once endorsed, was now immoral, before society at large already made that judgement. Can you give a specific example?

One specific example is slavery. I assume you’ll agree that the Church once tolerated slavery, and that Western society at large did not make a collective judgment that the practice was morally wrong until the 19th century in the United States and slightly earlier in Europe.

Yet Pope Paul III, in his 1537 decree Sublimus Deus addressing the practice of enslavement of natives in the New World, wrote:

We define and declare … that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

Much later, in 1839 (after several generations of consistent Church pronouncements), the papal document In Supremo Apostolatus was released, touching off a storm of controversy in North America:

We warn and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour. … We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices above-mentioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth[.]

To continue:

Stimpson J. Cat said:
I think that in spite of the obvious attempts of religious groups (particularly the Catholic Church) to present the impression that they are the source of modern morality, that the historical record clearly indicates that nearly every advancement in morality over the past few hundred years, has been strongly resisted by religious groups, and primarily supported by society as a whole, rather than by religious groups.

Don't you think moral advancements (much like legal advancements or artistic advancements) are frequently resisted by society as a whole in their initial stages? In fact, widespread social acceptance is often the last chapter in the story of any moral revolution. Society generally has to be won over, and sometimes religious institutions and beliefs lend impetus to the movement.

Stimpson J. Cat · Nov 8, 2002

Ceo_esq,

First of all, could you clarify what you mean by “religiously motivated”?

I would say that a movement can be called "religiously motivated", if the reason behind the movement is that the people involved have concluded that their religion implies that the movement should be made.

For example, when Catholics protest against abortion, that is religiously motivated. On the contrary, the behavior of the Black churches in the civil rights movement could not really be considered to be religiously motivated, because the motivation was clearly a desire for equal rights on the part of the people involved.

When I ventured to say that the civil rights movement “drew inspiration, resources and key moral insights from religion”, I should emphasize, I did not mean that religion offered esoteric moral principles relating to civil rights which were not accessible outside of religion. People have an intuitive faculty (more or less developed according to the person) for grasping moral principles and are capable of working out moral matters by the light of reason, or so Aquinas tells us.

However, moral understanding is increased and refined through the many varieties of human experience and discourse. Is it really so extraordinary that the moral understanding elaborated through religious experience and discourse might, from time to time and as to certain issues, occasionally arrive at a new approach to a moral problem which hasn’t yet been broadly embraced by the society at large? I don't need to be religious to recognize that the contrary would be even more surprising.

I don't disagree with any of this. My point is simply that over the past several hundred years, most of the changes to morality occurred in society at large, with the disapproval of the dominant religions. And that only after the standard of morality held by society as a whole had changed, did any of the major religions modify their position.

This is apparent even now. There are still many things which the major religious organizations consider immoral, which society at large does not, (divorce, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, sexuality in entertainment, etc...) and vice versa, many things which these religions still consider moral, which society no longer tolerates (coercive techniques for keeping members, the notion of revenge as a reasonable motivation for punishment, etc...).

Now that I think of it, Stimpy, perhaps I could ask you to describe the type of historical example you would accept as validating my point. I don’t expect you to come up with my evidence for me, of course, but if you could broadly describe the criteria (e.g., “a moral advancement where A and B are true, but Y and Z are absent” or whatever), it might spare me the trouble of coming up with an example that doesn’t meet your criteria and spare you the trouble of refuting it. I hope you’re not going to say “a true moral advancement that no one supported except for religious reasons and that was completely unjustifiable by reference to any non-religious moral precept,” or anything like that.

OK. Any example within the past few centuries of the Church changing its position with respect to an issue of morality, while society as a whole still held the former position, and then said church leading society to change its position. And just to avoid any ambiguities, when I say "the Church", I simply mean the dominant religious power at that time and place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
In ancient times, there was no distinction between religion and law. The origin of the barbaric practices of medieval and prior times is irrelevant. What is relevant is that religions tend to have an immense amount of social inertia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your first statement is an overly broad generalization. I grant that the notion of the divine origins of civil authority persisted until relatively late in Western history, and the modern understanding of the separation of church and state is, well, modern. However, it's simply untrue that premodern societies (such as during the Middle Ages) did not exhibit a distinction – in some respects a reasonably sophisticated one – between civil authority and ecclesiastical authority, as well as identifiably separate legal and judicial institutions in each sphere. I think this is relevant in the context of my remarks about torture.

Actually, by ancient times, I was referring to the period of 2 to 3 thousand years ago, over which the dominant religions of today were being formed. As I said, the standard morality of these religions dates back to the nature of society at that time, which was by modern standards, barbaric.

And immense inertia is a feature of social institutions, full stop; it’s demonstrably not unique to religious institutions.

It is a feature of certain types of social institutions, and Religions are of that type. Society as a whole, tends to change as the conditions change. Religions, and many other types of institutions, tend to resist such change.

This just serves to support my point. Change to societal norms, including but not limited to morality, tend to come about dynamically, and in a rather unorganized way. They are not typically the result of a specific concerted effort on the part of a particular organization, religious or otherwise. The exception, of course, is when the organization is forcing those changes on the population.

One specific example is slavery. I assume you’ll agree that the Church once tolerated slavery, and that Western society at large did not make a collective judgment that the practice was morally wrong until the 19th century in the United States and slightly earlier in Europe.

Yet Pope Paul III, in his 1537 decree Sublimus Deus addressing the practice of enslavement of natives in the New World, wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We define and declare … that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much later, in 1839 (after several generations of consistent Church pronouncements), the papal document In Supremo Apostolatus was released, touching off a storm of controversy in North America:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We warn and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour. … We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices above-mentioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth[.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: At the time that Papal decree was made, was slavery considered moral in the societies that were predominantly Catholic? It was my understanding that at this time, slavery was already considered immoral by the majority of European society, and that most Europeans were not happy with the treatment of natives of other countries.

Don't you think moral advancements (much like legal advancements or artistic advancements) are frequently resisted by society as a whole in their initial stages? In fact, widespread social acceptance is often the last chapter in the story of any moral revolution. Society generally has to be won over, and sometimes religious institutions and beliefs lend impetus to the movement.

Well they certainly try to, but as Loki pointed out, they are almost always on the conservative end of the scale. When they are trying to change something, it is usually them trying to change things back to the way they were when the Church had more control over society.

Dr. Stupid

ceo_esq · Nov 8, 2002

Thanks for the cogent responses, Stimpy, which I'm mulling over.

Stimpson J. Cat said:
There are still many things which the major religious organizations consider immoral, which society at large does not, (divorce, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, sexuality in entertainment, etc...) and vice versa, many things which these religions still consider moral, which society no longer tolerates (coercive techniques for keeping members, the notion of revenge as a reasonable motivation for punishment, etc...).

I accept your basic point, but I question some of your examples. When you talk about social acceptance or tolerance, are you determining this by reference to the absence of legal prohibitions, expressions of public opinion, or something else?

You might be surprised to learn the following (I certainly was):

- only 52% of American society at large morally approves of couples living together outside of marriage;

- only 59% of American society at large morally approves of divorce; and

- a majority of American society at large considers homosexual behavior to be immoral.

(source 1; source 2)

This suggests to me that, at least in the United States, society at large is a long way from reaching a moral consensus on such issues (although it's obvious which way the wind is blowing).

Stimpson J. Cat said:
Question: At the time that Papal decree was made, was slavery considered moral in the societies that were predominantly Catholic? It was my understanding that at this time, slavery was already considered immoral by the majority of European society, and that most Europeans were not happy with the treatment of natives of other countries.

Good question. By the way, let's focus on the earlier papal decree; I'll concede that the slave trade had largely disappeared from Europe by the time of the second one, which seems to have been aimed primarily at the United States (which was, of course, not a predominantly Catholic country).

Frankly, I don't know enough about social attitudes of European societies of the 16th-19th centuries to be able to answer with confidence. Maybe someone else here does?

However, from my reading of basic reference sources such as Wikipedia, I would draw the tentative conclusion that a majority of European society did not come to view the slave trade as immoral until the late 18th century in most countries. I base this conclusion on two factors: (1) I find no references even to small anti-slavery social campaigns prior to the late 17th century at the very earliest, and (2) slavery laws and practices persisted until the late 18th to mid-19th century depending on the country, and it seems unlikely that they could have withstood more than a generation or so of widespread public disapproval.

Ironically, it seems that the worst and most recalcitrant offenders (apart from the United States, of course) were nominally Catholic countries such as Portugal and Spain.

LW · Nov 8, 2002

Stimpson J. Cat said:
It was only after the Church began to lose control to individual rulers, that standards of morality began to change.

I'll now interrupt this thread to comment this one sentence.

I don't know much about the general situation in Europe, but at least in Sweden (that ruled over my home country back then) the standards of morality changed to much more religious after the king took control of the Church.

The old laws were modified to take the Laws of Moses into account. Sentences became much more strict for most crimes, and there were even some cases where a man was sentenced to death for breaking the 4th Commandment when he had argued back to his parents in public. Withcraft in general became a crime, as well as adultery and sex before marriage.

One reason for this change came from the power struggle between the king and the nobles. The stricter laws enabled the king to assert more control over the population as he nominated the judges.

The Mosaic Laws were used for roughly a hundred years (17th century) with some vestiges staying in books up until 1971 when homosexuality was decriminalized in Finland (I don't know when it was decriminalized in Sweden).

Stimpson J. Cat · Nov 8, 2002

ceo_esq,

I accept your basic point, but I question some of your examples. When you talk about social acceptance or tolerance, are you determining this by reference to the absence of legal prohibitions, expressions of public opinion, or something else?

Both.

You might be surprised to learn the following (I certainly was):

- only 52% of American society at large morally approves of couples living together outside of marriage;

- only 59% of American society at large morally approves of divorce; and

Nope, not surprised at all. For one thing, this does not contradict my point. I think it is clear from the statistics that you just cited, that society at large, does not consider these things to be immoral. Secondly, this is a wonderful example of how the difference between poles, and actual actions, illustrate human hypocrisy. The fraction of people who consider divorce and living outside of marriage to be moral appears to be far less than the fraction of people that actually do those things. Go figure.

- a majority of American society at large considers homosexual behavior to be immoral.

Agreed. This moral change is still largely in progress. It is pretty telling, though, that about the only justification for homosexuality being immoral that anybody can come up with, is religious. Once again, this is an advancement in morality that is occurring as we speak, and once again, it is the religions that are opposing it with all their might.

This suggests to me that, at least in the United States, society at large is a long way from reaching a moral consensus on such issues (although it's obvious which way the wind is blowing).

Moral consensus is a pipe dream. I am more concerned with simple tolerance. I don't care whether somebody considers my actions to be immoral or not, as long as they don't hassle me about it.

Good question. By the way, let's focus on the earlier papal decree; I'll concede that the slave trade had largely disappeared from Europe by the time of the second one, which seems to have been aimed primarily at the United States (which was, of course, not a predominantly Catholic country).

Frankly, I don't know enough about social attitudes of European societies of the 16th-19th centuries to be able to answer with confidence. Maybe someone else here does?

However, from my reading of basic reference sources such as Wikipedia, I would draw the tentative conclusion that a majority of European society did not come to view the slave trade as immoral until the late 18th century in most countries. I base this conclusion on two factors: (1) I find no references even to small anti-slavery social campaigns prior to the late 17th century at the very earliest, and (2) slavery laws and practices persisted until the late 18th to mid-19th century depending on the country, and it seems unlikely that they could have withstood more than a generation or so of widespread public disapproval.

Ironically, it seems that the worst and most recalcitrant offenders (apart from the United States, of course) were nominally Catholic countries such as Portugal and Spain.

I also do not have enough specific knowledge of that period to argue the point properly. I will say this, though. There is a big difference between having a society that supports slavery, and having a society which tolerates the use of slavery in other places. In particular, if the current level of interest in foreign affairs is any indication, I would suspect that the majority of people living in Portugal Spain had little interest, and even less knowledge, of what their colonists and explorers were doing halfway around the globe.

LW,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
It was only after the Church began to lose control to individual rulers, that standards of morality began to change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll now interrupt this thread to comment this one sentence.

I don't know much about the general situation in Europe, but at least in Sweden (that ruled over my home country back then) the standards of morality changed to much more religious after the king took control of the Church.

The old laws were modified to take the Laws of Moses into account. Sentences became much more strict for most crimes, and there were even some cases where a man was sentenced to death for breaking the 4th Commandment when he had argued back to his parents in public. Withcraft in general became a crime, as well as adultery and sex before marriage.

One reason for this change came from the power struggle between the king and the nobles. The stricter laws enabled the king to assert more control over the population as he nominated the judges.

The Mosaic Laws were used for roughly a hundred years (17th century) with some vestiges staying in books up until 1971 when homosexuality was decriminalized in Finland (I don't know when it was decriminalized in Sweden).

Dammit man, I'm making broad generalizations here! No fair bringing up specific counter-examples!

Seriously, though. This does not contradict what I said. It was still only after the Church lost control that moral standards began to change for the better. The fact that there was an initial backlash effect, just goes to show that the religious authority does not have to be the church. It can be anybody that attempts to use religion to exert control over the public. From what you have said, this is exactly what happened.

Dr. Stupid

stamenflicker · Nov 9, 2002

And fortunately, there were enough other Americans who believed in the basic principles of freedom and liberty enough to stand with them. And lest we forget where those principles came from. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't any religion.

That seems a bit shortsighted at best. While it is true that religious institutions in the South were hardly pictures of ethnic tolerance, several in the North were pushing for equality. That makes it a geo-social issue more than any particular religious issue to me. Racism is present both within and without various religious systems, and many of the white churches both north and south participated in marches and rallies in favor of civil rights. In fact, the seminary from which I graduated was the first Southern Baptist institution to host MLK, jr. They lost some funding over it too.

There is a big difference between having a society that supports slavery, and having a society which tolerates the use of slavery in other places.

It's facinating to me to think there are people who believe slavery does not exist in the US. When 50% of a workers wages go to support the government, that's slavery friend. Maybe I have the illusion of freedom because I can sit on the internet at night, or go to the movies, but the facts are simple-- the social class structure in America, even in the upper middle class is organized and pimped out slavery for the needs of the rich. Not only that, but we as a nation continue to employ slave labor around the world, and employ slave states to carry out our military will and national interests. The problem with secular morality as I see it, is that it never gets to the "heart" of the issue to institue life change. I would ask, what is the motivation for anyone to adhere to a secular morality?

I don't know of any example of the Church deciding that a particular practice they once endorsed, was now immoral, before society at large already made that judgement. Can you give a specific example?

Dude Roger Williams is the primary reason we have freedom of religion in America. Conservative Baptist fudamentalist. Is secular society going to take credit for everything? How about preventing drunk driving? Or drunk wife beating? Or drunk drop out of school-ism? Is that their issue, or does it belong to religion? It seems to me religion has warned of these sorts of problems for a while, and secular society is trying to decide if they should join the bandwagon. Another example is equality for women-- it may not have been practiced as such after say 200AD, but the early church was chocked full of gender equality.

I don't care whether somebody considers my actions to be immoral or not, as long as they don't hassle me about it.

That doesn't work Stimp... unless you are doing something in the privacy of your own home. We live in a society, in communities... and in many cases what one person does affects another person.
Should I hassle a drunk driver? Or a wife beater? Damn straight dude.

Loki,

I'd suggest that religion leads change only when there is a clear social/political advantage (for the leadership or congregation) from that change. Otherwise, religion is to be found at the conservative edge of any debate.

I'm not so sure there is a problem here. Sometimes folks need to be on the conservative side of a debate. For example, the current trend of our young ladies becoming loosey-goosey whores is a good example. Nothing good comes from early teenage sexuality, unless you like STD's, teen pregnancy, or ovarian cancer. You can site religion for trying to make a difference there.

Stimpson J. Cat · Nov 9, 2002

Flick,

And fortunately, there were enough other Americans who believed in the basic principles of freedom and liberty enough to stand with them. And lest we forget where those principles came from. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't any religion.

That seems a bit shortsighted at best. While it is true that religious institutions in the South were hardly pictures of ethnic tolerance, several in the North were pushing for equality. That makes it a geo-social issue more than any particular religious issue to me. Racism is present both within and without various religious systems, and many of the white churches both north and south participated in marches and rallies in favor of civil rights. In fact, the seminary from which I graduated was the first Southern Baptist institution to host MLK, jr. They lost some funding over it too.

Once again, I am not disputing this. I am not saying that religions were not involved in these types of events. What I am saying is that these types of events were not religiously motivated, and that typically the dominant religious groups have been against such changes. That is all I am saying.

There is a big difference between having a society that supports slavery, and having a society which tolerates the use of slavery in other places.

It's facinating to me to think there are people who believe slavery does not exist in the US. When 50% of a workers wages go to support the government, that's slavery friend. Maybe I have the illusion of freedom because I can sit on the internet at night, or go to the movies, but the facts are simple-- the social class structure in America, even in the upper middle class is organized and pimped out slavery for the needs of the rich. Not only that, but we as a nation continue to employ slave labor around the world, and employ slave states to carry out our military will and national interests.

Good grief man. As much as I would love to rip into such a ludicrous statement, let's try to stay on topic here, OK?

The problem with secular morality as I see it, is that it never gets to the "heart" of the issue to institue life change. I would ask, what is the motivation for anyone to adhere to a secular morality?

The same as the motivation for adhering to any code of morality. Because you think it is the right thing to do. Remember, morality is a set of rules or guidelines for behavior that are ultimately based on some set of values. When we talk about the state of morality in society changing, what we are really talking about is a change in the values held by those people. Everybody has values, and those are motivation enough to adhere to a moral code that is consistent with those values. It is only when you try to implement rules that are not based on values the people hold, and then call them "morality", that it becomes necessary to try to give people incentives for following them, like Heaven, Hell, prison, death, torture, etc...

I don't know of any example of the Church deciding that a particular practice they once endorsed, was now immoral, before society at large already made that judgement. Can you give a specific example?

Dude Roger Williams is the primary reason we have freedom of religion in America. Conservative Baptist fudamentalist. Is secular society going to take credit for everything?

Newsflash, the motivation for religious freedom was the coexistence of minority religions with a dominant one. The minority religious want the right to exist, go figure. Such freedom has (at least with respect to Christianity), always been opposed by the dominant religion.

How about preventing drunk driving? Or drunk wife beating? Or drunk drop out of school-ism? Is that their issue, or does it belong to religion? It seems to me religion has warned of these sorts of problems for a while, and secular society is trying to decide if they should join the bandwagon.

Trying to decide if they should join? Are you kidding? These are all social problems. The involvement of religious groups in them is irrelevant. I mean come on. THe bottom line is that the majority of society is religious, so obviously relevant social issues are going to be reflected in those religions. This is exactly why religious institutions are forced to change their position on issues as society changes.

Please try to argue against my point. Nothing you are saying seems even remotely relevant.

Another example is equality for women-- it may not have been practiced as such after say 200AD, but the early church was chocked full of gender equality.

You have got to be kidding.

I don't care whether somebody considers my actions to be immoral or not, as long as they don't hassle me about it.

That doesn't work Stimp... unless you are doing something in the privacy of your own home. We live in a society, in communities... and in many cases what one person does affects another person.
Should I hassle a drunk driver? Or a wife beater? Damn straight dude.

Once again, you are misinterpreting what I said. It is my opinion that morality is only an issue when other people are involved. I was simply pointing out that I don't care if people consider my actions which don't effect other people to be immoral or not, as long as they don't hassle me about it. Obviously society as a whole has to implement rules to protect the rights of the people that make up the society. Remember, my comment was in reference to the question of whether there would ever be a consensus in morality. The point is that there does not need to b a complete consensus, as long as everybody agrees on the basic notions of personal freedom and tolerance.

Dr. Stupid

ceo_esq · Nov 9, 2002

Stimpy,

Stimpson J. Cat said:
There is a big difference between having a society that supports slavery, and having a society which tolerates the use of slavery in other places. In particular, if the current level of interest in foreign affairs is any indication, I would suspect that the majority of people living in Portugal Spain had little interest, and even less knowledge, of what their colonists and explorers were doing halfway around the globe.

I agree that people’s moral attitudes (or at least how people follow through on them) differ depending on whether the phenomenon in question is occurring in their backyards. For example, American society does not tolerate the presence of sweatshops on American territory, and most Americans would state that they morally disapprove of the practice wherever it is found. However, when it comes time to put their money where their mouths are, most Americans will turn a blind eye to immoral labor practices overseas and keep purchasing low-cost goods produced in sweatshops in developing countries. I find this kind of hypocrisy disheartening, all the more so because I'm sure I’ve been guilty of it myself.

This paper indicates that the number of foreign slaves within Europe in the 16th through 18th centuries was sufficiently high that European society at large was completely familiar, and by all appearances morally comfortable for the most part, with this social evil. For example, it’s estimated that in the year 1620, more than 10,000 slaves were living in the city of Lisbon alone. (I note with dismay that, at least according to this paper, a few of the early successes in prohibiting slavery on European soil were due not to a change in morals but simply to the fact that Europeans began to resent the presence of so many nonwhites).

Now that I’ve had a chance to examine and learn a bit more about slavery and anti-slavery in European history, I would venture to suggest that this sample case is looking like a better and better candidate for meeting the criteria you offered for a religiously-motivated moral advancement.

Let’s recap the situation:

The Church once tolerated slavery. At least by the 16th century, though (which roughly coincided with the beginnings of large-scale enslavement of, and commerce in, blacks and native New Worlders by Europeans), the Church was publicly teaching in no uncertain terms that the practice was incompatible with Christian faith and morals.

Whenever this change in religious view actually occurred, it must have preceded any significant shift in the moral attitude of European society at large toward slavery. European countries continued to tolerate on their own soil, both in law and in practice, the treatment of human beings as brutes and chattel for a long time after the Church began pointing out the serious moral problems inherent in the practice. The practice was widespread enough, and close enough to home, that it’s unreasonable to claim that the average person living in these countries was either too ignorant of or too far removed from the facts to be able to adopt a moral stance against slavery.

[Edited to add: Also, this does not appear to have been an instance in which the people/institutions militating for a change in policy were acting pursuant to a banal or evident motivation such as their immediate and direct self-interest.]

Unless I’m overlooking something crucial, what we have here is an example of a religious institution achieving a noteworthy moral insight (1) on a matter of significant gravity, (2) which did not correspond to (and represented a momentous advancement over) the prevailing conventional morality and (3) which was eventually (but only after great time, effort and persistence) integrated into the secular ethical landscape of the culture involved (images of kicking and screaming spring unbidden to my mind).

I'm confident that this advancement would have been achieved sooner or later in the absence of any religious involvement. But I also think it remains to the everlasting credit of the dominant religious institution in question that it was able to achieve the breakthrough it did without the kind of external social pressure that is sometimes (I agree with you) required.

Loki · Nov 10, 2002

Flick,

...loosey-goosey whores...

Cultural reference, right? Don't worry explaining - I get the (creatively colorful) image.

Nothing good comes from early teenage sexuality,...

A true enough statement, but any solution here would seem to require the cooperation and argeement of the participants (ie, teens). In this sense, I guess "conservative" relates to the approach, not the outcome.

Statement : Teen Sex is bad.
Conservative : "Why is it bad? - because it is, okay! Now don't you talk back to me boy..."

So I guess I'm saying that even if the outcome is desireable, religions often find a 'path' that is undesireable. Jeez- you guys just can't win! (yes, tongue in cheek at this point...)

ceo_esq · Nov 12, 2002

Loki said:
I think a key factor is to differentiaite between the person/institution making the change, and the motivation/basis for making the change. Christianity has a strong history of 'interpretation', of making the book say what we want it to say. Did the black Civil Rights movement of the 60's start because "their religion told them they should have equal rights", or did they decide they wanted equal rights, and then found support in their religion?

I'd suggest that religion leads change only when there is a clear social/political advantage (for the leadership or congregation) from that change. Otherwise, religion is to be found at the conservative edge of any debate.

In other words, when religion leads the fight for change, it's because there is a non-religious advantage to be gained, and the religion is reworked to incorporate the required outcome.

Our discussion seems to be leading to the conclusion (in my view, at least) that this is not a hard and fast rule. However, to the extent it is true, isn't it a property of institutions as such (as I proposed to Stimpy earlier) rather than uniquely of religious ones?

The characteristics of institutions and the mechanisms of institutional change are well documented, and suggest that successful, long-lived institutions (such as Christianity) combine both conservative and progressive traits.

Stimpson J. Cat · Nov 12, 2002

Ceo_esq,

Sorry for getting back to this so late. The spam-clan knocked it right off the page, and I didn't even notice it till the last post.

This paper indicates that the number of foreign slaves within Europe in the 16th through 18th centuries was sufficiently high that European society at large was completely familiar, and by all appearances morally comfortable for the most part, with this social evil. For example, it’s estimated that in the year 1620, more than 10,000 slaves were living in the city of Lisbon alone. (I note with dismay that, at least according to this paper, a few of the early successes in prohibiting slavery on European soil were due not to a change in morals but simply to the fact that Europeans began to resent the presence of so many nonwhites).

I will admit that I don't know enough about this era to properly respond to this. I did notice that the paper you cite makes no reference to the church opposing it, though.

Now that I’ve had a chance to examine and learn a bit more about slavery and anti-slavery in European history, I would venture to suggest that this sample case is looking like a better and better candidate for meeting the criteria you offered for a religiously-motivated moral advancement.

Well, all except for the problem that the initiative on the part of the Church that you are talking about happened nearly 500 years ago. Remember in my original post that I was referring to advancements in morality over the past couple of centuries. There is a reason for that. Prior to about 300 years ago, Christianity still had so much control over the European governments that it is basically meaningless to try to talk about any social movement independent of the dominant religions of the time. Those nations were religious monarchies, where the Kings derived their right to rule from God. Religion was a dominating, and legally mandated, social force.

It is only in the past few hundred years that we have actually had secular societies in which issues of morality could be discussed outside of the framework of religion. Prior to that, you would have to go back to the pre-Christian Roman Empire.

In other words, I don't see how any of this addresses my point that pretty much every significant advance to morality over the past 300 years or so, has been secular, rather than religious, or my point that during this time, the largest opponents to these changes have typically been the dominant religions.

Our discussion seems to be leading to the conclusion (in my view, at least) that this is not a hard and fast rule. However, to the extent it is true, isn't it a property of institutions as such (as I proposed to Stimpy earlier) rather than uniquely of religious ones?

The characteristics of institutions and the mechanisms of institutional change are well documented, and suggest that successful, long-lived institutions (such as Christianity) combine both conservative and progressive traits.

I would go along with that. Religions are simply a type of institution for which conservative traits are far more dominant than progressive ones. Society as a whole, though, is not an institution. My original point could easily be expanded to say that, overall, it is not institutions (religious or otherwise) that have been responsible for most of the positive moral changes over the past few centuries, but rather dynamic changes to society as a whole. Such changes are only really possible when no single institution has a dominating stranglehold on the moral standards of the society.

Moral changes come about as the result of changes in philosophy. In religion, the philosophy is fixed, and only changes when it is forced to in order to insure the survival of the religion. And even then, the changes are fiercely resisted. In society as a whole, though, so long as the society is not dominated by a religion, philosophies tend to naturally change and adjust over time. Over the past few hundred years, the philosophical position of most of western society has become more humanistic. This is the primary reason that morality has changed. As a result, most forms of Christianity have become more humanistic as well, although they still lag behind society as a whole.

Dr. Stupid

Tricky · Nov 12, 2002

I have to agree with Stimpy on this one. Before the Renaissance, most of the common people likely had no real concept of the dogma of Christianity. After all, most of it was in Latin. As people became more educated, they became restive about the unfair and un-Christian setup of society. It seems entirely likely to me that this unrest in the formerly quiescent peasant segment of society "infected" the policy of the church with the memes that subjugation of the masses was wrong.

Why do I feel like quoting Monty Python here?

Gregor · Nov 12, 2002

Impossible conclusions

I suspect that the subtopic - whether the Christian church was ahead of the societal curve on abolition - is the subject of a least a doctoral thesis, not the cursory review we can give it. However, I do not see how CEO can make the following assertion:
___________
"Whenever this change in religious view actually occurred, it must have preceded any significant shift in the moral attitude of European society at large toward slavery. "
___________

Given the state of the evidence presented, I think "must have" is too strong.

Solving this question would require research into (i) when legislators introduced proposals (that started with little support and later reached greater approvals) banning slavery, (ii) when associations were started to help those impacted by slavery, (iii) when pamphlets and books were written complaining of slavery.

Further, unlike today, people of 17th century Europe did not have the financial ability or government-granted freedoms to hold an "anti-slavery" rally in Wittenberg.

Unless someone has done this in depth research for us, we really cannot say whether the church's stand on abolition was at the fore, in the middle, or at the rear.

Finally, I doubt that "religion" is monolithic enough to make generalizations one way or the other. For each Quaker you have a Southern Baptist. For each Catholic anti-Vietnam priest you have a Lutheran pro-Nixon minister. I would generalize that when a particular flavor of religion has societal dominance, it is loath to change its moral codes if it would lessen the church's authority - but that is not particular to religions.

ceo_esq · Nov 12, 2002

Re: Impossible conclusions

Gregor said:
I suspect that the subtopic - whether the Christian church was ahead of the societal curve on abolition - is the subject of a least a doctoral thesis, not the cursory review we can give it. However, I do not see how CEO can make the following assertion:
___________
"Whenever this change in religious view actually occurred, it must have preceded any significant shift in the moral attitude of European society at large toward slavery. "
___________

Given the state of the evidence presented, I think "must have" is too strong.

Britain seems to have been ahead of the other European powers on the anti-slavery front. Certainly (we have already seen), it was the first to adopt anti-slavery legislation. If everyone accepts these facts, then we can fruitfully devote our attention to the British case, because if the Christian abolitionist stance preceded the coalescing of public anti-slavery sentiment in Britain, it appears logical to conclude that it also preceded the same phenomenon in other European countries.

Solving this question would require research into (i) when legislators introduced proposals (that started with little support and later reached greater approvals) banning slavery,

The first legislative proposal attempting even to regulate (much less abolish) the British slave trade was introduced in Parliament in 1778. It was defeated, but other efforts followed. (source)

(ii) when associations were started to help those impacted by slavery,

I find no references in my preliminary research to identifiable anti-slavery movements in Britain prior to the late 1600s, and those were religious in nature (notably the Quakers). General histories of British abolitionism characterize it as an 18th and 19th-century phenomenon. (source)

(iii) when pamphlets and books were written complaining of slavery.

The dates of the major figures and documents of the British anti-slavery movement appear to correspond to the timeframe we've already provisionally identified. (source)

Further, unlike today, people of 17th century Europe did not have the financial ability or government-granted freedoms to hold an "anti-slavery" rally in Wittenberg.

True enough. Organizing a grass-roots movement at that time was a different affair. However, people in 17th-century Europe did participate in anti-status-quo social movements and stage acts of protest. If you mean to suggest that secular attitudes toward slavery in Europe really had changed ahead of religious attitudes, but the anti-slavery populace was forced to remain a "silent majority" for all those years, I'm skeptical but open to argument.

Unless someone has done this in depth research for us, we really cannot say whether the church's stand on abolition was at the fore, in the middle, or at the rear.

I realize that the evidence presented thus far on the slavery issue is not based on dissertation-quality research. However, I think it is possible to draw some tentative conclusions (am I overlooking, by the way, any actual evidence offered by someone other than myself?).

If any of the abolition-related evidence I've submitted seems particularly dubious, or if I've failed to make an unrefuted showing in support of any premise, please identify the problem area specifically so we can see about addressing it.

Otherwise, I daresay that a case - not an unassailable case, but certainly a prima facie one - in favor of the validity of my slavery example has emerged from this discussion.

By the way, PotatoStew, if you're still reading this thread, feel free to contribute to the debate or offer your own assessment of our progress. I know you started the thread and I'd hate for you to leave it orphaned.

EDITED TO ADD: Stimpy, I've noted and am considering your objections as to the timeliness of the slavery example.

Loki · Nov 12, 2002

ceo-esq,

However, to the extent it is true, isn't it a property of institutions as such (as I proposed to Stimpy earlier) rather than uniquely of religious ones?

Even if true, I still find it a problem that the "area of expertise" of these particular institutions (ie, the Catholic church) is "good and evil". I don't have as strong an objection to the the cotton growing industry failing to lead the charge against slavery, because their primary "are of expertise" is "profit from cotton production". Even the government gets a partial exception, because that institution has a number of roles to play, only one of which might be stated as "moral guidance".

I guess the point is (in case it's not already clear) is that I would expect the NFL lead to way on "what makes Football better", rather than the Ohio Womens Bakery Association, (or even the NBA).

...am I overlooking, by the way, any actual evidence offered by someone other than myself?).

Oh, you wanted evidence, rather than just my opinion?

Well, time is short at the moment, but I'd like to pursue this, so I'll try and find the time to dig a little. Certainly not planning a dissertation, but you are right - it's time for me to either offer more that "I think so", or to just shut up!

ceo_esq · Nov 13, 2002

Loki said:
Even if true, I still find it a problem that the "area of expertise" of these particular institutions (ie, the Catholic church) is "good and evil".

Yes. Morality isn't the only or even the primary preoccupation of the Church, but it is something to which the Church is supposed to be devoting a lot of higher-level thinking. So I agree that we should reasonably be entitled to expect that the Church should at the very least not be a chronic underachiever in the field of ethical philosophy. Otherwise, it should consider a better use of time and resources, sticking perhaps to rummage sales.

One of my points in this thread, though, is that the charge Stimpy and others have leveled against religious morality (vis-à-vis secular morality) is not (or has not yet been shown to be, in any event) well founded. Understandably, it's taking a while to slog through the arguments and evaluate particular case studies.

Oh, you wanted evidence, rather than just my opinion?

Hehe. I wasn't singling you out. Opinion's a good start (after all, my initial stance in this thread was really just supposition for which I had no evidence at hand).

The evolution of religious and secular morality

Scholar

Graduate Poster

Master Poster

Graduate Poster

Illuminator

Graduate Poster

Illuminator

Master Poster

Graduate Poster

stamenflicker

Unregistered

Graduate Poster

Illuminator

Graduate Poster

Illuminator

Graduate Poster

Briefly immortal

Critical Thinker

Illuminator

Graduate Poster

Illuminator